The figures are just breathtaking.
We are experiencing the most expensive election in the history of humanity. From the primaries to the close of polls on Tuesday a total of $3 billion is likely to have been spent on the campaigns of candidates for House, Senate and presidency, up a full quarter on the estimates for 1996, according to the non-partisan monitoring group, the Center for Responsive Politics.
Then the Clinton and Dole campaigns spent between them about $232 million with an additional $69 million going from advocacy groups on "issue ads". This time around it is estimated to have cost Governor Bush $100 million to win the primary alone. And, so far, in the "real" campaign the latter has already out-spent Vice-President Gore to the tune of $135 million to $81 million.
And what has changed is not only the scale of spending but its nature. Circumventing the limits imposed on individual donations to candidates for federal office, "hard money", individuals, parties and lobbies have been spending "soft money" like never before.
It is not supposed to be used explicitly to endorse or oppose a candidate but is not subject to limits. Although ostensibly limited to issue advocacy, party building, enhancing turnout and directly supporting state and local candidates, campaign teams have openly flouted the spirit of the rules to the point where repeated polls show the public has no idea which is which.
"Soft money" spending is up from $46 million in the 1991-92 campaigns, to $256 million in 1999-2000. As a share of the overall spending it is up from 18 per cent to 40 per cent.
Individuals are limited in their "hard money" donations to $1,000 per candidate per year, and they may receive up to $5,000 per election from what are known as political action committees which spend huge sums on behalf of groups of co-workers or fellow professionals on their favoured candidates - these contributed about $218 million to the 1996 campaigns.
The value of the donation ceilings has been eroded, however, by about two-thirds in the last 20 years, and hence the pressure to use "soft money" which has effectively blown a hole of gaping proportions through the reforms of the 1970s.
According to the latest Federal Electoral Commission figures, business donations dominate the cash raised by both parties, representing 15 times as much as that from trade unions. Some $841 million has been contributed by business to the current campaign, 60 per cent of it to the Republicans, while unions contributed $56 million, 93 per cent to the Democrats.
Ideological groups have spent $34 million evenly, while "Others" ($95 million) lean towards the Republicans.
The most generous donations came from finance and banking ($61 million), and while eight out of 10 business sectors gave more to the Republicans, two sectors leaned to the Democrats - lawyers, lobbyists and communications, electronics.
Then there are individual lobbies like the National Rifle Association which has planned to spend $25 million on its "Vote Freedom First" campaign which suggests that Mr Gore wants to restrict gun access. It has mobilised 350,000 volunteers to help, up from 150,000 in 1996.
The main labour federation, the AFL-CIO, will spend $46 million while the Christian Coalition plans to distribute 70 million voter guides, up from 40 million in 1996.
The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People is putting up cash for the first time, $9 million, while the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League has doubled its political commitment to $7 million.
And the almost insurmountable challenge involved in breaking into the upper echelons of political life is reflected in the painful reality that House of Representative incumbents were able on average to out-spend challengers by 10 to one. In the Senate less than one in three races feature candidates with roughly equal means.
The average cost of winning a Senate seat in 1996 was $3.7 million, and in the House $675,000.
Yet while all sides accept that the figures are a cause of concern there are deep divisions about what to do. Mr Gore favours banning all soft money, Mr Bush would only curb that from corporations and trade unions. In Congress there are moves to raise some donation limits and some are arguing for their complete abolition. Yet others, on the left, have made the case for total state funding.
Far-reaching reform is unlikely, not least because the Supreme Court regards the right to make a political donation as akin to free speech. And some people do very nicely by the system as it stands.
But come Tuesday, "payback time", the US will once again demonstrate that the business of America is business.